4 ms·

There is no such thing as money with no strings attached. Even if it was not meant that way, or explicit quid pro quo in any way, after time Bellingcat would be

There is no such thing as money with no strings attached. Even if it was not meant that way, or explicit quid pro quo in any way, after time Bellingcat would be more reticent to anger their financers.

_djo_ 5y ago
If they're the biggest chunk of your funding, sure. If it's just one funding source amongst many, which is the strategy taken by groups like Bellingcat to avoid that sort of implicit coercion, then that's really not a factor.
sam_lowry_ 5y ago
Having worked in media, I do agree that there are always strings attached to the money. However, the relationship between money and reporting is not straightforward. For instance, Bill and Melinda Gates foundation and many other lobbyists that pay media are suggesting the topics, not the content. They pay for coverage and your editor in chief commits into producing x articles on y subjects, the content is left at the exercise of the journalist. Do not forget that journalists are often freelancers working for multiple outlets and they do try to enforce deontologic rules as a way to protect their profession. Compared to software developers, journalists earn less but own more. They do keep the right to the content and are liable individually. There are lots of restrictions in place as to what media outlets can and can not do to journalists, and some are even enshrined in laws.
- belter 5y ago
  You can't possibly seriously propose, the Gates foundation would suggest the topic and then ...Although not directly involved in the content, not choose a media where they could be assured the delivery will be to their satisfaction.
  - sam_lowry_ 5y ago
    From my experience, they often work on matters that are orthogonal to political divisions. If anything, they would shell out money to media with specialized audience just because they want wider coverage of issues they are interested in.

_djo_ 5y ago

If they're the biggest chunk of your funding, sure. If it's just one funding source amongst many, which is the strategy taken by groups like Bellingcat to avoid that sort of implicit coercion, then that's really not a factor.

sam_lowry_ 5y ago

Having worked in media, I do agree that there are always strings attached to the money. However, the relationship between money and reporting is not straightforward. For instance, Bill and Melinda Gates foundation and many other lobbyists that pay media are suggesting the topics, not the content. They pay for coverage and your editor in chief commits into producing x articles on y subjects, the content is left at the exercise of the journalist. Do not forget that journalists are often freelancers working for multiple outlets and they do try to enforce deontologic rules as a way to protect their profession. Compared to software developers, journalists earn less but own more. They do keep the right to the content and are liable individually. There are lots of restrictions in place as to what media outlets can and can not do to journalists, and some are even enshrined in laws.

belter 5y ago
You can't possibly seriously propose, the Gates foundation would suggest the topic and then ...Although not directly involved in the content, not choose a media where they could be assured the delivery will be to their satisfaction.
- sam_lowry_ 5y ago
  From my experience, they often work on matters that are orthogonal to political divisions. If anything, they would shell out money to media with specialized audience just because they want wider coverage of issues they are interested in.